- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Please welcome Supranet to MICE!

by Chris Wopat

On 12/23/2013 08:46 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Supranet is connecting both of their ASNs to MICE via one port. > > AS: 4150 > IPv4: 206.108.255.27 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1036::1/64 > Port: ge-1/0/7 Main Switch (shared) > Peering Contact: peering(a)supranet.net > Route Servers: yes > Max IPv4 Prefix: 250 > > AS: 5683 > IPv4: 206.108.255.28 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1633::1/64 > Port: ge-1/0/7 Main Switch (shared) > Peering Contact: peering(a)supranet.net > Route Servers: yes > Max IPv4 Prefix: 250 Thanks Jay. MICE participants- we'll be ready to peer in early January. I'll shoot out another message then to muster up peers that don't use the route-server. -- Chris Wopat SupraNet Communications, Inc. chrisw(a)supranet.net (608) 836-0282 x302 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 23, 2013

Please welcome Supranet to MICE!

by Jay Hanke

Supranet is connecting both of their ASNs to MICE via one port. AS: 4150 IPv4: 206.108.255.27 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1036::1/64 Port: ge-1/0/7 Main Switch (shared) Peering Contact: peering(a)supranet.net Route Servers: yes Max IPv4 Prefix: 250 AS: 5683 IPv4: 206.108.255.28 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1633::1/64 Port: ge-1/0/7 Main Switch (shared) Peering Contact: peering(a)supranet.net Route Servers: yes Max IPv4 Prefix: 250 Please email me back when the route server configuration is complete. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com http://www.neutralpath.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 23, 2013

Re: cogent or HE?

by Matthew Beckwell

Per Hurricane Electric: We had an issue with our router in Chicago. This affected routing in the region. At this time the issue is resolved. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] cogent or HE? We just lost our "full view" from HE... Seems to have stabilized though. On Dec 18, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Ryan Goldberg wrote: > Anybody else notice anything out of the ordinary with cogent or HE transit? > > Sorry for the spam... > > Ryan > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 18, 2013

Re: cogent or HE?

by Eric Crist

We have both and I can look when I get back to a terminal. None of our canaries have tipped over though. On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > We just lost our "full view" from HE... Seems to have stabilized though. > > On Dec 18, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Ryan Goldberg wrote: > > > Anybody else notice anything out of the ordinary with cogent or HE > transit? > > > > Sorry for the spam… > > > > Ryan > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com <javascript:;> > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Eric F Crist System Administrator ClaimLynx, Inc (952) 593-5969 x2301 -- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender or call ClaimLynx at (952) 593-5969. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 18, 2013

Re: cogent or HE?

by Matthew Beckwell

+1 I sent it over to noc(a)he.net ~Matthew -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] cogent or HE? We just lost our "full view" from HE... Seems to have stabilized though. On Dec 18, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Ryan Goldberg wrote: > Anybody else notice anything out of the ordinary with cogent or HE transit? > > Sorry for the spam... > > Ryan > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 18, 2013

Re: cogent or HE?

by Andrew Hoyos

We just lost our "full view" from HE... Seems to have stabilized though. On Dec 18, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Ryan Goldberg wrote: > Anybody else notice anything out of the ordinary with cogent or HE transit? > > Sorry for the spam… > > Ryan > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 18, 2013

cogent or HE?

by Ryan Goldberg

Anybody else notice anything out of the ordinary with cogent or HE transit? Sorry for the spam... Ryan ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 18, 2013

Enventis Maintenance

by Jake Lubitz

Greeting Tonight (12/17 into 12/18) we are planning on doing some maintenance work on our equipment that connects to the MICE Juniper router. This is in preparation to upgrade our link to the MICE router to 10Gbps. As a result, traffic (BGP) from us to the MICE router will drop out tonight. We hope to have everything back up by tomorrow (12/18) afternoon. Please let us know if there are any issues or objections to this maintenance work. Thanks in advance. Jake ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 17, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

Appreciate the community. Thanks. Onward! First 20g LAG! > On Dec 11, 2013, at 23:44, "Anthony Anderberg" <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > > Since I haven't seen anyone argue for maintaining the status quo and it seems like we're working toward a policy that includes optional opacity of some sort I've removed the member identification colors from the Ingress graph, guest access to Akamai's graph, and also the details from their Weathermap link. > > As always let me know if you see anything wrong or silly. > > Cheers, > anthony > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 12, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Anthony Anderberg

Since I haven't seen anyone argue for maintaining the status quo and it seems like we're working toward a policy that includes optional opacity of some sort I've removed the member identification colors from the Ingress graph, guest access to Akamai's graph, and also the details from their Weathermap link. As always let me know if you see anything wrong or silly. Cheers, anthony ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 12, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

Thanks guys...! > On Dec 11, 2013, at 19:00, "Doug McIntyre" <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:58:12PM -0600, Michael Horwath wrote: >>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: >>> One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive? >> >> It may not be possible and I?d need to engage Doug at ipHouse to do something directly in the archives (which LISTSERV will probably bark about). > > > I've removed that posting (just the attachment was not possible) from > the list Archives. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 12, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:58:12PM -0600, Michael Horwath wrote: > On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > > One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive? > > It may not be possible and I?d need to engage Doug at ipHouse to do something directly in the archives (which LISTSERV will probably bark about). I've removed that posting (just the attachment was not possible) from the list Archives. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Michael Horwath

On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Michael Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > >> One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive? > > As the list master for this I’ll check into what can be done. > > It may not be possible and I’d need to engage Doug at ipHouse to do something directly in the archives (which LISTSERV will probably bark about). Looks like I’ll need to work with Doug. Fingers ><ed! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Michael Horwath

On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive? As the list master for this I’ll check into what can be done. It may not be possible and I’d need to engage Doug at ipHouse to do something directly in the archives (which LISTSERV will probably bark about). -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:jayhanke@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: > Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. Sure. And thanks for the call this morning, I appreciated it. When we define admins they should be folks with enable on the gear who have it to fix problems. There should also be a basic expectation of privacy of that data. Admins emailing. me and saying "Hey! Where's your port upgrade!" is fine, but emailing the entire list with that is probably not ok. That should apply across the organization. This would be a fairly standard interpretation of how things are done at IXP's in North America and depending upon the final language I would be pleased to support. As far as my data being "public" I'm going to disagree with the board that any member with a login != public so I'm still asking that they remove my graph until we have a better solution. I'm a former MRTG user and maker of pages to monitor things with SNMP, I'm well aware of how to make this work and I'm happy to volunteer to help manage the cacti instance if it would be helpful. There are multiple good reasons for this approach. Unfortunately, the UG meeting conflicts with my Super Bowl vacation or I would come to do a presentation for you on this. Perhaps next one. I hope this helps to clarify and move us along. And as soon as we get this resolved I'll start working to add my second 10G. :-) Best, -M< ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Anthony Anderberg

Anytime today (11th) or Friday (13th) are fine for me if anyone wanted to have a call. I'd agree that Dave did a good job of summarizing the issues and Richard's responses are a reasonable evolution in our shared MICE journey. I'd thought about a combination of ASN/member specific passwords and leaving the graphs open to members but I'm not sure that would meet Martin's needs, especially in the nirvana of the future when his competition might also be MICE members. Obviously under a "hidden graph" scenario members couldn't troubleshoot traffic bottlenecks across MICE themselves and people would need to continue to have reasonable expectations about volunteer administrator's abilities to respond. Part of the support for the current policy came from member's experiences of being frustrated by their provider's opaqueness in situations like the last iOS upgrade, but I think everyone understands that some of Akamai's needs are a little different. One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive? The "anonymous port" idea isn't a bad one either, but it doesn't seem as clean to me in terms of maintenance simplicity and perhaps in terms of anonymity given the current port count and comparative traffic volumes. Having said that I'll certainly work to implement whatever the group's new direction is, appreciate everyone's thoughts and support. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Shaun Carlson Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:13 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Port Anonymity Should we set up a call for later today? s On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Jay, Theres a lot of conflicting stuff here. Think I liked most of Richards responses to David. Let's talk live and see if we can sort this out. Work? Best, Marty On Dec 10, 2013, at 22:49, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20'jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET');>> wrote: > Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. Jay ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Shaun Carlson Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com<mailto:shaun.carlson@arvig.com> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Shaun Carlson

Should we set up a call for later today? s On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > Jay, > > Theres a lot of conflicting stuff here. Think I liked most of Richards > responses to David. > > Let's talk live and see if we can sort this out. Work? > > Best, > > Marty > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 22:49, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET');>> > wrote: > > > Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph > data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. > Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with > us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully > requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be > helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our > data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline > with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North > America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not > the solution. > > > > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally > defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. > > Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- *Shaun Carlson*Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

Jay, Theres a lot of conflicting stuff here. Think I liked most of Richards responses to David. Let's talk live and see if we can sort this out. Work? Best, Marty On Dec 10, 2013, at 22:49, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:jayhanke@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: > Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. Jay ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

First, let's get back into compliance and we can work together. Best, Marty On Dec 10, 2013, at 22:49, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:jayhanke@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: > Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. Jay ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Jay Hanke

> Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. > Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Graphs, Stats and List Archive (was: Re: Is Today The Test)

by Richard Laager

Here are my answers to the questions David posed: On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 20:27 -0600, David Farmer wrote: > 1. Should the list archive be public? Yes. > 3. What graphs and statistics should be collected? The traffic graphs, plus I think error graphs should be added. > 4. Who should have access to what graphs and statistics? Whoever is delegated by the Board to administer Cacti has full access to Cacti. Whoever is delegated by the Board to administer the switches has read access to all graphs. Graphs are public, unless that network has asked to opt-out. If a network has opted-out, the graph is hidden from the public ("guest") user account. The aggregate graph (the one from the home page) is public, but should not separate traffic by colors or otherwise. That graph shall not show a "Current" or "Last" value. No other aggregates shall be public without further discussion. (A graph of a port facing a remote switch is not an "aggregate" graph for this purpose; it's a "network" graph.) > 5. What is the proper security for the graphs and statistics? Reasonable passwords for the non-public Cacti accounts. A randomly-generated password for SNMP between Cacti and the switches, ideally changed whenever someone is removed from the switch or Cacti delegations. -- Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:jayhanke@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: On Dec 10, 2013 8:34 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)akamai.com<mailto:marty@akamai.com>> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM<mailto:rlaager@WIKTEL.COM>> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:21 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > >> Please take a look at http://www.netnod.se/ix/statistics, to see how > >> they do it. This is what we are planning to model off of. > > > > They are graphing the anonymous ports. So MICE would have exactly the > > problems I noted. So this doesn't solve anything. > > > > I agree, it would be sort of a joke actually as it would be completely obvious when we went down and back up. > > This will also prevent other large sources of traffic from joining the exchange. We're happy to work to see if we can help with whatever the objective is and to come up with a solution if its possible, but we would like our ports opted out ASAP. MICE is required by contract to provide mrtg graphing to Akamai. MICE is also managed by the members of the exchange. If the managers of the ix can't access the graphs we can't provide them if requested. Marty, could you be specific in your request and make a suggestion? Jay, Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution. Best, -M< ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Jay Hanke

On Dec 10, 2013 8:34 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:21 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > >> Please take a look at http://www.netnod.se/ix/statistics, to see how > >> they do it. This is what we are planning to model off of. > > > > They are graphing the anonymous ports. So MICE would have exactly the > > problems I noted. So this doesn't solve anything. > > > > I agree, it would be sort of a joke actually as it would be completely obvious when we went down and back up. > > This will also prevent other large sources of traffic from joining the exchange. We're happy to work to see if we can help with whatever the objective is and to come up with a solution if its possible, but we would like our ports opted out ASAP. MICE is required by contract to provide mrtg graphing to Akamai. MICE is also managed by the members of the exchange. If the managers of the ix can't access the graphs we can't provide them if requested. Marty, could you be specific in your request and make a suggestion? Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:21 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: >> Please take a look at http://www.netnod.se/ix/statistics, to see how >> they do it. This is what we are planning to model off of. > > They are graphing the anonymous ports. So MICE would have exactly the > problems I noted. So this doesn't solve anything. I agree, it would be sort of a joke actually as it would be completely obvious when we went down and back up. This will also prevent other large sources of traffic from joining the exchange. We're happy to work to see if we can help with whatever the objective is and to come up with a solution if its possible, but we would like our ports opted out ASAP. Best, -M< ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013

Re: Port Anonymity

by Richard Laager

On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:21 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > Please take a look at http://www.netnod.se/ix/statistics, to see how > they do it. This is what we are planning to model off of. They are graphing the anonymous ports. So MICE would have exactly the problems I noted. So this doesn't solve anything. -- Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 11, 2013